American contact dermatitis society core allergen series

Deciphering trends in replacing preservatives in cosmetics intended for infants and sensitive population

The present study aims to investigate the current trends in replacing conventional preservatives with multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties for preservation of cosmetics for infants or sensitive population, to decrease their potential for contact dermatitis. We first reviewed the labels of cosmetics purchased from the Chinese market for conventional preservatives and multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties, of which the actual contents were further quantified by chromatographic methods. We identified 7 traditional preservatives (phenoxyethanol, benzoic acid (salts), methylparaben, benzyl alcohol, sorbic acid (salts), propylparaben, and methylisothiazolinone), and 11 alternative ingredients with antimicrobial activities (ethylhexylglycerin, butylene glycol, caprylyl glycol, propylene glycol, 1,2-hexanediol, p-anisic acid, hydroxyacetophenone, pentylene glycol, decylene glycol, caprylhydroxamic acid, and aminomethyl propanol) in descending order of prevalence. The contents of all identified preservatives and ingredients were either below regulatory limits or in the range that is generally regarded to be safe. Further challenge with microorganisms indicated irrespective of the composition of preservation systems, product preservation could be compromised under test conditions. We conclude that multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties in cosmetics have the potential to completely replace or significantly reduce the use of traditional preservatives while retaining comparative preservative efficacy. Future attentions may need to be shifted to the safety of those multifunctional ingredients with antimicrobial properties.

Occurrence of alkyl glucosides in rinse-off cosmetics marketed as hypoallergenic or for sensitive skin

Rinse-off cosmetic products, primarily shampoos, are frequently implicated in the onset of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by alkyl glucosides (AGs). AGs are increasingly popular surfactants and known contact allergens. Glucoside-induced ACD was most frequently observed with shampoos and skin-cleansing products in both consumer and occupational settings. Thereby, studies have shown that atopic individuals are the most susceptible to ACD. Also, several investigations have indicated that individuals with sensitive skin might be more prone to skin allergies. This is why the presence of AGs was investigated in shampoos and body cleansers marketed as hypoallergenic or for sensitive skin. For this purpose, the website of Amazon.com was surveyed. Four groups of cosmetics were obtained by using the following keywords: "hypoallergenic shampoo for adults," "sensitive skin shampoo for adults," "hypoallergenic body cleanser for adults," and "sensitive skin body cleanser for adults." The first 30 best-selling cosmetics in each group were investigated for the presence of AGs, by analyzing the product information pages. The results showed that as much as 56.7% of hypoallergenic shampoos contained AGs, as ingredients, whereas the percentage was somewhat lower for other product categories. Even though decyl and lauryl glucoside were nearly ubiquitously used AGs in cosmetics over the past decade, the most commonly present AG in our analysis was coco-glucoside. The results of this study indicated a necessity to include coco-glucoside in the baseline series of patch testing allergens. Industry, regulators, and healthcare providers should be made aware of the frequent presence of AGs in rinse-off cosmetic products marketed as hypoallergenic or for sensitive skin to ensure the safety and well-being of consumers and patients.

Association of Intraoperative Antibiotic Irrigation With Systemic Contact Dermatitis

This case series describes the development of morbilliform drug eruption after breast surgery.

Trends in Patch Testing in the Medicare Part B Fee-for-Service Population

BACKGROUND

Patch testing is a vital component of the workup for allergic contact dermatitis. There are limited data on changes of patch testing use among Medicare providers, as well as patch testing reimbursement rates.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate trends in the use of patch testing among various Medicare providers and Medicare patch testing reimbursement.

DESIGN

A longitudinal analysis of patch testing claims was performed with the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary files from 2010 to 2018. The primary outcomes were the total number and change in the number of submitted patch testing services from 2010 to 2018 by 3 provider groups: dermatology physicians, nondermatology physicians, and nonphysician providers. Secondary outcome measures included Medicare reimbursement amounts and changes in reimbursement amounts for patch test services (total and per 1000 enrollees) from 2010 to 2018 for the 3 provider groups, as well as per patch test service.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2018, submitted patch testing services per 1000 enrollees grew by 89.0%. The annual trend estimate for submitted services relative to 2010 was +10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.1 to 12.0) for physicians and +34.1% (95% CI = 32.1 to 36.0) for nonphysician providers (physician assistants and nurse practitioners). Among physicians, the annual trend estimate for submitted services was +5.1% (95% CI = -11.3 to 21.5) for dermatologists and +31.40% (95% CI = 15.00 to 47.81) for allergists.

CONCLUSIONS

Patch testing increased in the US Medicare population from 2010 to 2018, and this increase was largely driven by nonphysician providers and allergists.

Clinical, Endoscopic, and Histologic Benefit With Comprehensive Type IV Hypersensitivity Patch Testing in Adults With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, immune-mediated disorder of increasing incidence.¹ Although empiric elimination diets are commonly used EoE therapies, adoption of allergy testing to guide elimination diets has been more limited.^2,3 This likely stems from testing that has often focused on immediate type I hypersensitivity (ie, skin-prick or serum-specific IgE testing) rather than comprehensive type IV hypersensitivity patch tests (CPT), which identify delayed-type allergens.⁴ Although atopy patch tests have been less successful for food triggers, CPTs can evaluate the potential role of additives and aeroallergens in EoE.⁵ Our study aimed to determine if avoiding aeroallergens and additives to everyday products based on a CPT would lead to symptomatic and histologic improvement in patients with EoE who had not responded to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) alone.

Multicenter 1-month follow-up study of the patch-test reaction to the gold sodium thiosulfate of the TRUE Test and its association with piercings and dental metal history

BACKGROUND

There is controversy over late and long-lasting reactions to gold sodium thiosulfate (GST).

OBJECTIVES

To study the GST patch-test reaction by observing the application site after 1 month, and to clarify the relevance of GST sensitization by piercings and dental metals.

PATIENTS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 746 patients (143 male; 603 female) who were patch tested using GST of the TRUE Test. We conducted a questionnaire on the presence of piercings or dental metals in these patients.

RESULTS

The GST positive rate was 27.9% at day (D)3 and/or D7 and 40.3% up to the 1-month reading. The positive rate was significantly higher in female patients and increased with age. Sixty-two percent of cases with a positive reaction at D7 continued to show a positive reaction after 1 month. Eleven percent of cases with a negative reaction at D3 and D7 showed a late reaction. Both piercings and dental metals were related to gold sensitization.

CONCLUSIONS

The GST of the TRUE Test had a high positive and low false-negative rate. The 1-month reading after the patch test was important for identifying late reactions. Piercing history and dental metal were associated with gold sensitization.

The erythema Q-score, an imaging biomarker for redness in skin inflammation

Physician rating of cutaneous erythema is central to clinical dermatological assessment as well as quantification of outcome measures in clinical trials in a number of dermatologic conditions. However, issues with inter‐rater reliability and variability in the setting of higher Fitzpatrick skin types make visual erythema assessment unreliable. We developed and validated a computer‐assisted image‐processing algorithm (EQscore) to reliably quantify erythema (across a range of skin types) in the dermatology clinical setting.

Our image processing algorithm evaluated erythema based upon green light suppression differentials between affected and unaffected skin. A group of four dermatologists used a 4‐point Likert scale as a human evaluation of similar erythematous patch tests. The algorithm and dermatologist scores were compared across 164 positive patch test reactions. The intra‐class correlation coefficient of groups and the correlation coefficient between groups were calculated. The EQscore was validated on and independent image set of psoriasis, minimal erythema dose testing and steroid‐induced blanching images. The reliability of the erythema quantification method produced an intra‐class correlation coefficient of 0.84 for the algorithm and 0.67 for dermatologists. The correlation coefficient between groups was 0.85. The EQscore demonstrated high agreement with clinical scoring and superior reliability compared with clinical scoring, avoiding the pitfalls of erythema underrating in the setting of pigmentation. The EQscore is easily accessible (http://lab.rockefeller.edu/krueger/EQscore), user‐friendly, and may allow dermatologists to more readily and accurately rate the severity of dermatological conditions and the response to therapeutic treatments.

Medical devices in allergy practice

Medical devices provide people with some health benefits in terms of diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and monitoring of disease processes. Different medical specialties use varieties of medical devices more or less specific for them. Allergology is an interdisciplinary field of medical science and teaches that allergic reactions are of systemic nature but can express themselves at the level of different organs across the life cycle of an individual. Subsequently, medical devices used in allergology could be regarded as: 1) general, servicing the integral diagnostic and management principles and features of allergology, and 2) organ specific, which are shared by organ specific disciplines like pulmonology, otorhinolaryngology, dermatology, and others. The present position paper of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) is meant to be the first integral document providing structured information on medical devices in allergology used in daily routine but also needed for sophisticated diagnostic purposes and modern disease management. It is supposed to contribute to the transformation of the health care system into integrated care pathways for interrelated comorbidities.

American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2020 Update

The American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen series was introduced in 2013 and updated in 2017. Changes in our recommended allergens are again necessary, taking into account data from the American Contact Dermatitis Society's Contact Allergen Management Program top 100 allergens from 2018. For the updated series, we removed methyldibromoglutaronitrile and added new haptens: Lyral, Limonene, Linalool, carmine, benzyl salicylate, disperse yellow 3, jasmine, peppermint, pramoxine, shellac, and lauryl polyglucose (glucosides). These additional allergens should increase the yield of relevant positive reactions for our patients.

Allergens in Medical Hand Skin Cleansers

Health care workers may be at risk of occupational allergic contact dermatitis because of their frequent exposure to medical hand skin cleansers. We identified American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 Allergens found in medical hand skin cleansers (waterless skin soaps, water-needed skin soaps, and skin disinfectants) in the United States and developed a list of "low-allergen" medical hand skin cleansers. Waterless skin soaps most commonly contained fragrance, tocopherol, and sodium benzoate. Top allergens in water-needed skin soaps included fragrance, chloroxylenol, propylene glycol, and cocamidopropyl betaine. The most common allergens identified in skin disinfectants were chlorhexidine, cocamide diethanolamine, and fragrance. We identified 11 waterless skin soaps that were free of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core 80 Allergens. Low-allergen products were also identified for water-needed skin soaps (2 products) and skin disinfectants (4 products). This information is accurate as of the date of publication; product availability and ingredients may change over time.

Utilization, cost, and provider trends in patch testing among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2012 to 2017

BACKGROUND

Patch testing is the best diagnostic test for allergic contact dermatitis. However, there is presently a lack of data on the test's geographic availability and the characteristics of the providers offering this test across the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the geographic variation in the availability of patch testing for the Medicare population and to characterize the temporal trends of patch testing cost, use, and provider specialty from 2012 to 2017.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data from 2012 to 2017.

RESULTS

As of 2017, patch testing was available in 20.3% of metropolitan counties and in 1.1% of nonmetropolitan counties. From 2012 to 2017 in metropolitan regions, the number of beneficiaries tested by dermatologists grew by an average annual growth rate of 1.84%, whereas those tested by allergists grew by an average annual growth rate of 20.31%. Most providers that averaged use of 80 or more patches per beneficiary were dermatologists (76.3%).

LIMITATIONS

Analysis was restricted to Medicare Part B claims; data were unavailable on individuals with commercial insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the increase in patch testing utilization from 2012 to 2017 has been in metropolitan regions. Although growth was especially prominent among allergists in metropolitan counties, the majority of providers performing comprehensive patch testing were dermatologists.

Patch Testing Ingredients of Dermabond and Other Cyanoacrylate-Containing Adhesives

BACKGROUND

Cyanoacrylates are strong adhesives used for a variety of medical, industrial, and cosmetic applications and have been implicated as a cause of allergic contact dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to review our experience in patch testing with cyanoacrylates.

METHODS

We reviewed patch test results of 38 patients with a clinical history of contact dermatitis due to a cyanoacrylate-containing adhesive (mostly Dermabond). Testing used cyanoacrylates of >99% purity diluted to 10% to 30% in petrolatum (pet.), undiluted octyl cyanoacrylate, and/or Dermabond Mini or Advanced "as is." Patch tests were also performed with methacrylates, formaldehyde (a cyanoacrylate impurity), benzalkonium chloride, and cyanoacrylate polymerization inhibitors. Three patients were also tested with Dermabond Mini on abraded skin.

RESULTS

Commercial cyanoacrylate patch testing material (ethyl cyanoacrylate 10% pet.) detected 29% of Dermabond-allergic patients, whereas patch testing with octyl cyanoacrylate 10% pet. increased detection to 50%. Testing with higher concentrations and/or on abraded skin further increased yield. Thirteen (37%) of our 35 cyanoacrylate-allergic patients were also allergic to methacrylates or acrylates.

CONCLUSIONS

Octyl cyanoacrylate is the usual allergenic ingredient in Dermabond. Patch testing with high concentrations is often required. Testing Dermabond on abraded skin further improves diagnostic sensitivity by more closely simulating clinical use.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis

Allergic contact dermatitis is common, resulting in considerable morbidity. Diagnosis is based on a thorough history, physical examination, and patch testing. Several commercially available panels of patch testing are currently used. Allergens are found in a wide variety of daily products, occupational exposures, and foods. The mainstay of treatment is avoidance of the allergen, and databases like Contact Allergen Management Program and Contact Allergen Replacement Database help patients to select products that do not contain allergens to which they are sensitized. Topical corticosteroids can be used to treat exacerbations, but should be avoided in long-term treatment.

Patch Test Practice Patterns of Members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society

BACKGROUND

Patch testing is the criterion standard for diagnosis and management of allergic contact dermatitis. Limitations on the number of allergens tested can negatively impact patient care.

OBJECTIVE

This study reports clinical practice patterns of American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) members.

METHODS

In October and November 2018, the US-based members of the ACDS received an electronic survey regarding their procedures and experiences with patch testing. We evaluated the type of practice, number of patients tested, type of screening and supplemental series, number of allergens tested, and billing and reimbursement concerns.

RESULTS

There were 149 respondents; 62% use ACDS Core 80, 70% "sometimes" or "always" test with supplemental series, and 70% "sometimes" or "always" test patient products. Participants estimated that supplemental series identify relevant allergens 35% of the time. Approximately 66% most commonly test more than 81 allergens per patient, and 78% expressed concerns regarding fair reimbursement.

CONCLUSIONS

Most ACDS members routinely test more than 81 allergens per patient. Barriers to fair payment for beyond a fixed number of patches at any one visit may impede the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis, prolong suffering, and worsen outcomes.

Exploring the Incidence, Implications, and Relevance of Metal Allergy to Orthopaedic Surgeons

Introduction:

Allergic reactions to metal implants are increasingly recognized, but its relevance to the orthopaedic surgeon remains unclear. We evaluate the prevalence of metal allergies in a subset of the population and review the significance through a survey of the current literature.

Methods:

Preoperative and postoperative patients referred for metal allergy testing were divided into two groups; those with a history of dermatitis and those without. Patients with a history of dermatitis were offered skin patch testing that included the North American Contact Dermatitis core allergen panels in addition to our metal screening series. Patients without dermatitis were tested to the more limited patch testing metal screening series. Some patients with dermatitis opted for the more limited screening, whereas some patients without dermatitis underwent more extensive testing at their request or at the request of the referring clinician. Patch tests were evaluated at 2 and 4 days after placement.

Results:

Hundred patients were referred for metal allergy testing, 46 of whom were for reasons related to planned orthopaedic surgery. Of those tested, 60 patients had a history of dermatitis and 40 did not. Some patients were nonreactive to all tested allergens, whereas others demonstrated one or more positive skin patch test reactions. The number of positive reactions to each metal in patients with a history of dermatitis was the following: nickel 19, amalgam 10, palladium 10, copper 8, cobalt 5, mercury 5, tin 2, gold 1, titanium 1, and vanadium 1. The number of positive reactions to metals in patients without a history of dermatitis was the following: nickel 4, amalgam 5, palladium 4, mercury 4, cobalt 4, tin 2, copper 2, gold 1, vanadium 1, and molybdenum 1.

Discussion:

Metal allergy was common in the individuals referred for testing, with reactions to nickel and amalgam being the most commonly encountered. Some individuals experience more notable allergic reactions to implanted devices than others. Localized and generalized skin reactions have been reported, along with implant failure and loosening. Surgeons should be aware of the incidence of metal allergies and the potential consequences.

North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2015-2016

BACKGROUND

Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for the assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD).

OBJECTIVE

This study documents the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2015, to February 28, 2017.

METHODS

At 13 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 70 allergens. Data were manually verified and entered into a central database. Descriptive frequencies were calculated, and trends were analyzed using χ test.

RESULTS

A total of 5597 patients were tested. There were 3725 patients (66.6%) who had at least 1 positive reaction, and 2798 patients (50.2%) were ultimately determined to have a primary diagnosis of ACD. A total of 572 patients (10.2%) had occupationally related skin disease. There were 10,983 positive allergic reactions. Nickel remained the most commonly detected allergen (17.5%). Methylisothiazolinone, which was added to the screening series for the 2013-2014 cycle, had the second highest positive reaction rate of allergens tested (13.4%). Compared with the previous reporting periods (2013-2014) and (2005-2014), positive reaction rates for the top 35 screening allergens statistically increased for only 1 allergen: hydroxyethyl methacrylate (3.4%; risk ratios, 1.24 [confidence interval, 1.00-1.54] and 1.46 [confidence interval, 1.23-1.73]). Three newly added allergen preparations-ammonium persulfate (1.7%), chlorhexidine (0.8%), and hydroquinone (0.3%)-all had a reaction rate of less than 2%. Twenty-three percent of the tested patients had at least 1 relevant allergic reaction to an allergen not on the NACDG series; 12% of these were occupationally related. T.R.U.E. Test (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark) would have hypothetically missed one quarter to almost 40% of reactions detected by the NACDG screening series.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm that the epidemic of sensitivity to methylisothiazolinone has continued in North America. Patch testing with allergens beyond a screening tray is necessary for a complete evaluation of occupational and nonoccupational ACD.

Experience in patch testing: A 6-year retrospective review from a single academic allergy practice

BACKGROUND

Patch testing is the "gold standard" to identify culprit allergen(s) causing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but there are limited studies of patch testing from allergy practice settings.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to explore patch test findings in a large academic allergy practice, including patch testing results, history of atopy, location of dermatitis, and referral source. We also wanted to determine whether patch testing using an extended panel, such as the North American screening series, compared with a limited series, such as the Thin-Layer Rapid-Use Epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) Test, increased the sensitivity.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients referred for patch testing over a 6-year period.

RESULTS

A total of 585 patients (mean age 48.7 years, 71.6 % female) underwent patch testing over the 6-year period, of which 369 (63%) had a positive test. Of those who tested positive, 202 (55%) reported a history of atopy. The extremities were the most commonly involved site, followed by the head/neck and trunk. The 5 most common positive allergens were nickel sulfate, gold sodium thiosulfate, methylchloroisothiazolinone, thimerosal, and bacitracin. Three hundred fourteen (53.6%) patients were positive to at least 1 allergen on TRUE testing. Extended screening series identified an additional 10.8% of patients with positive tests who were negative to T.R.U.E. test allergens.

CONCLUSION

Patch testing is a valuable diagnostic tool for the practicing allergist and provides early identification of culprit allergens in ACD. Performing an extended screening series such as the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) or supplemental panel of allergens increased sensitivity when compared with a limited series.

Wet Wipe Allergens: Retrospective Analysis From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2011-2014

BACKGROUND

Although there are several case reports of wet wipe-associated contact dermatitis, the prevalence of wipes as a source of allergic contact dermatitis in larger populations and the responsible allergens are largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of wet wipes as a source of contact allergy and the most commonly associated allergens in a North American tertiary referral patch test population.

METHODS

Data collected from 2011 to 2014 by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group was used to conduct a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patient demographics and patch test results associated with the triple-digit source code for "wet wipe."

RESULTS

Of the 9037 patients patch tested during the study period, 79 (0.9%) had a positive patch test reaction to an allergen identified with a wet wipe source. The most commonly associated allergens were preservatives, including the following: methylisothiazolinone (MI) (59.0%), methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/MI (35.6%), bronopol (2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol) (27.4%), and iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (12.3%). Fragrance (combined) represented 12.3%. Anal/genital dermatitis was 15 times more likely (P < 0.0001) in those with wet wipe allergy. More than 92% of patients with wipe-associated contact allergy had their contact allergens detected by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening series.

CONCLUSIONS

Wet wipes are an important source of contact allergy. Preservatives are the main allergens, especially isothiazolinones.

Vapor Pressure and Predicted Stability of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergens

BACKGROUND

Accurate patch testing is reliant on proper preparation of patch test allergens. The stability of patch test allergens is dependent on several factors including vapor pressure (VP).

OBJECTIVE

This investigation reviews the VP of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergens and compares stability predictions based on VP with those established through clinical testing.

METHODS

Standard references were accessed for determining VP in millimeters of mercury and associated temperature in degrees celsius. If multiple values were listed, VP at temperatures that most approximate indoor storage conditions (20°C and 25°C) were chosen. For mixes, the individual component with the highest VP was chosen as the overall VP, assuming that the most volatile substance would evaporate first. Antigens were grouped into low (≤0.001 mm Hg), moderate (<1 to >0.001 mm Hg), and high (≥1 mm Hg) volatility using arbitrary cutoff values.

CONCLUSIONS

This review is consistent with previously reported data on formaldehyde, acrylates, and fragrance material instability. Given lack of testing data, VP can be useful in predicting patch test compound stability. Measures such as air-tight multidose reagent containers, sealed single-application dispensers, preparation of patches immediately before application, and storage at lower temperatures may remedy some of these issues.

Patch Test Negative Generalized Dermatitis

Allergic contact dermatitis is a common condition in dermatology. Patch testing is the criterion standard for diagnosis. However, dermatitis is not always caused by an allergen, and patch testing does not identify a culprit in every patient. Generalized dermatitis, defined as eczematous dermatitis affecting greater than 3 body sites, is often encountered in dermatology practice, especially patch test referral centers. Management for patients with generalized dermatitis who are patch test negative is challenging. The purpose of this article is to outline an approach to this challenging scenario and summarize the paucity of existing literature on patch test negative generalized dermatitis.

Consumer Preferences, Product Characteristics, and Potentially Allergenic Ingredients in Best-selling Moisturizers

Importance

Because moisturizer use is critical for the prevention and treatment of numerous dermatological conditions, patients frequently request product recommendations from dermatologists.

Objective

To determine the product performance characteristics and ingredients of best-selling moisturizers.

Design and Setting

This cohort study involved publicly available data of the top 100 best-selling whole-body moisturizing products at 3 major online retailers (Amazon, Target, and Walmart). Products marketed for use on a specific body part (eg, face, hands, eyelids) were excluded.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Pairwise comparisons of median price per ounce on the basis of marketing claims (eg, dermatologist recommended, fragrance free, hypoallergenic) and presence of ingredients represented in the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) series were conducted using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. The effect of vehicle type (eg, ointment, lotion, cream, butter) was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Cross-reactors and botanicals for fragrances were derived from the American Contact Dermatitis Society's Contact Allergen Management Program database.

Results

A total of 174 unique best-selling moisturizer products were identified, constituting 109 713 reviews as of August 2016. The median price per ounce was $0.59 (range, $0.10-$9.51 per ounce) with a wide range (9400%). The most popular vehicles were lotions (102 [59%]), followed by creams (22 [13%]), oils (21 [12%]), butters (14 [8%]), and ointments (3 [2%]). Only 12% (n = 21) of best-selling moisturizer products were free of NACDG allergens. The 3 most common allergens were fragrance mix (n = 87), paraben mix (n = 75), and tocopherol (n = 74). Products with the claim "dermatologist recommended" had higher median price per ounce ($0.79; interquartile range [IQR], $0.56-$1.27) than products without the claim ($0.59; IQR, $0.34-$0.92). Products with the claim "phthalate free" had higher median price per ounce ($1.38; IQR, $0.86-$1.63) than products without the claim ($0.59; IQR, $0.35-$0.91). Lotions (median, $0.49; IQR, $0.31-0.68) were statistically less expensive per ounce than butters (median, $1.20; IQR, $0.76-$1.63), creams (median, $0.80; IQR, $0.69-$1.25) and oils (median, $1.30; IQR, $0.64-$2.43). For products with a claim of "fragrance free," 18 (45%) had at least 1 fragrance cross-reactor or botanical ingredient. Products without any ingredients in the NACDG (median, $0.83; IQR, $0.47-$1.69) were not statistically more expensive per ounce than products with 1 or more allergens (median, $0.60; IQR, $0.35-$1.06).

Conclusions and Relevance

Best-selling moisturizers vary widely by price and product characteristics. Given the lack of readily available comparison data on moisturizer efficacy, dermatologists should balance consumer preference, price, and allergenicity in their recommendations.

Diseases of the lips

Heath care providers should be comfortable with normal as well as pathologic findings in the lips, because the lips are highly visible and may display clinical manifestations of local, as well as systemic inflammatory, allergic, irritant, and neoplastic alterations. Fortunately, the lips are easily accessible. The evaluation should include a careful history and physical examination, including visual inspection, as well as palpation of the lips and an examination of associated cervical, submandibular, and submental nodes. Pathologic and microscopic studies, as well as a review of medications, allergies, and habits, may further highlight possible etiologies. Many lip conditions, including premalignant changes, are relatively easy to treat, when the abnormalities are detected early; however, advanced disease and malignancies are challenging for both the patient and clinician. Treatment should be focused on eliminating potential irritants or allergens and treatment of the primary dermatosis. In this paper we review physiologic variants as well as pathologic conditions of the lips.

American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series: 2017 Update

The American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series was introduced in 2012. After 4 years of use, changes in our recommended allergens are necessary. For the updated series, we have reordered the first 4 panels to approximately mirror the current TRUE Test and removed parthenolide, triclosan, glutaraldehyde, and jasmine. Polymyxin B, lavender, sodium benzoate, ethylhexylglycerin, and benzoic acid are new additions to the American Contact Dermatitis Society series.

Contact Dermatitis in Pediatrics

Contact dermatitis is an umbrella term that describes the skin's reaction to contacted noxious or allergenic substances. The two main categories of contact dermatitis are irritant type and allergic type. This review discusses the signs, symptoms, causes, and complications of contact dermatitis. It addresses the testing, treatment, and prevention of contact dermatitis. Proper management of contact dermatitis includes avoidance measures for susceptible children. Implementation of a nickel directive (regulating the use of nickel in jewelry and other products that come into contact with the skin) could further reduce exposure to the most common allergens in the pediatric population. [Pediatr Ann. 2016;45(8):e287-e292.].

Immediate and Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Corticosteroids: Evaluation and Management

Corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory medications used widely to treat allergic inflammation. Although the endocrine and gastrointestinal side effects of corticosteroids have been described, the occurrence of immediate hypersensitivity reactions and delayed contact dermatitis due to corticosteroids remains under-recognized. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur to a corticosteroid itself, or to the additives and vehicles in corticosteroid preparations. Skin testing and oral graded challenge can help confirm the suspected culprit agent in immediate hypersensitivity reactions and help identify an alternative tolerated corticosteroid. Patch testing can help identify the culprit agents in delayed hypersensitivity contact dermatitis. Cross-reactivity patterns have not been observed for immediate hypersensitivity reactions as they have been for delayed contact dermatitis. Sensitization in contact dermatitis exhibits cross-reactivity patterns based on corticosteroid structure. We review the current understanding regarding the clinical presentation, evaluation, and management of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids.

Fragrance allergic contact dermatitis

Fragrances are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis in Europe and in North America. They can affect individuals at any age and elicit a spectrum of reactions from contact urticaria to systemic contact dermatitis. Growing recognition of the widespread use of fragrances in modern society has fueled attempts to prevent sensitization through improved allergen identification, labeling, and consumer education. This review provides an overview and update on fragrance allergy. Part 1 discusses the epidemiology and evaluation of suspected fragrance allergy. Part 2 reviews screening methods, emerging fragrance allergens, and management of patients with fragrance contact allergy. This review concludes by examining recent legislation on fragrances and suggesting potential additions to screening series to help prevent and detect fragrance allergy.

Alitretinoin for the treatment of severe chronic hand eczema

Chronic hand eczema is a common and often debilitating condition. Alitretinoin, a 9-cis-retinoic acid and pan-retinoic acid agonist, is a new and effective systemic treatment for chronic hand eczema, which provides another treatment option. A "clear" or "almost clear" response can be achieved in up to half of patients within a 24-week course of treatment. Even higher rates of remission can be obtained with a longer duration of treatment. Alitretinoin has a favorable overall profile of adverse effects; however, female patients who are at risk of becoming pregnant should follow a strict pregnancy-prevention program due to the teratogenic effects of this drug.